[han]

Richard posted while I was posting/cooking.

If a solution is a polynomial equation with rational coefficients then it is also a solution of a polynomial equation with integer coefficients of course (just multiply by the product of all denominators that occur in the equation).

[blackshoe]

han, on May 23 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

PassedOut, on May 23 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians.

You are mistaken. In fact most of the important work of Aristotle was done after he met Jezus Christ.

Uh, huh. Aristotle died in 322 BC - more than 3 centuries before Christ was born.

[han]

That may be what you believe.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on May 23 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

PassedOut, on May 18 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

I think that many people who profess to hold religious beliefs do so for social reasons, not because those beliefs are genuinely held. In many cases you can plainly see that people act in ways that would be out of the question if they genuinely believed what they profess.

I am not disputing this, merely curious.

I know some people who go to church entirely for social reasons but they don't profess to believe in religious dogmas. I also know some people who profess to believe in something they call "God" or whatever but that usually serves little social function. Of course there are people who go to church and believe in some religion which may or may not be related to the church but it occurs to me that the two things are largely independent.

Maybe I misunderstood how it works (if someone professed to believe what the priest says I might not be aware that the belief serves a social function only even if that were the case), but I wonder religion is something entirely different in the US than it is over here.

In my opinion lots of folks grow up attending church and the reciting their creeds and prayers in a kind of automatic mode (by no means everyone, if course). In much the same way, they automatically respond "yes" to questions about the existence of god.

In more casual social conversations though (especially after some loosening up), I've found that a good number typically don't hew strictly to their faith, nor do they agree with every word of what they affirm in church. Generally they accept parables as well-intended fables instead of as literal truth. Most chuckle at the fact that the very folks who say they accept the bible literally are the same folks who call themselves "born-again" christians. Some like the company in church, some like the music, some like to attend services just to be with family and friends. Some like the opportunities for social service they find at church, working in soup kitchens and the like.

So when polls say that some huge percentage of Americans believe in god, I think we can take that with a grain of salt. People often respond to polls with the answer they consider socially acceptable, rather than the awful truth. All American presidents claim to be christian for political reasons. But clearly Jimmy Carter was the last president who was honestly a christian.

Writing this post reminded me of a conversation/argument I had with a girl friend many years ago. She had the last word by saying, "No, I don't really believe in god, but at least I'm a hypocrite!"

[kenberg]

han, on May 23 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

Trancedental also makes an appearance in mathematics. A trancedental number is a number that is not algebraic, i.e. cannot be written using only roots and fractions. Another way to think about it is that a trancedental number is not a zero of any polynomial with integer coefficients. (integer = whole number)

As I expect you know, there are zeros of integer coefficient fifth degree polynomials that cannot be written using plus, minus, times, division and n^th order roots applied to rational numbers. (Abel/Galois). Still algebraic by your second characterization. This has no impact on the existence of God.

Obviously this is a side issue but the proof reader in me took control. I will now crawl back under the covers.

[matmat]

kenberg, on May 23 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

This has no impact on the existence of God.

lies. if there were a god, math wouldn't be so hard.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 23 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

Quote

so love is not abstract, winston?

I find no validation for an abstract or supernatural definition. I believe I have commented before that I accepted the definition of love that was presented to me by the author of a book who also happened to be an Episcopal minister. In this book he stated (correctly IMO) that love is not a feeling, although it is helpful when it is accompanied by good feelings, rather love is a decision and a commitment.

that isn't what i asked you... do you agree that love or ethics or the laws of logic are either abstract or material? if so, which? if not, what? and i agree that love is not a feeling... why are decision and commitment not the results of love rather than love itself? if Jesus made the decision and commitment to die for our sins, could he have done so because he loved us? i don't think decision and commitment is the definition of love

Quote

Quote

it's probably a poor effort, maybe you or someone else can do better

Your heart probably wasn't in it, but that's O.K. I'm not interested in bashing your worldview, even if I could. But I believe even the most devout must have the ability to say - I believe this although it has no logic.

you asked me to attempt to account for the laws of logic from within the atheistic worldview and i did so... i'd like to read your own effort

Quote

To try to prove to oneself the logic of a specific worldview creates a bias that cannot be overcome.

this caused me to reread what i wrote to see why you'd think i was saying this, but i couldn't find it... i never even implied that the christian worldview is logical while the atheist worldview isn't...

hrothgar, on May 23 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

Here's another definition, straight from our friend the wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia....endental_number

Quote

In mathematics, a transcendental number is an irrational number that is not algebraic, that is, not a solution of a non-zero polynomial equation with rational coefficients.

i've already stated what i meant by transcendental, i use the word to mean abstract or metaphysical... i'm not qualified to discuss mathmatical reality at a very high level, much less mathmatical theory

han, on May 23 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

Interesting thought that logic has to be accounted for. If there were no humans, no earth, no universe, nothing, would there also be no logic? More interesting than the existence of pink elephants and other supernatural beings. We've been through that discussion many times before and I doubt that it will lead to new insights.

it doesn't have to be accounted for, han... and to answer your second part, i don't know what would exist if nothing existed

[han]

kenberg, on May 23 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

han, on May 23 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

Trancedental also makes an appearance in mathematics. A trancedental number is a number that is not algebraic, i.e. cannot be written using only roots and fractions. Another way to think about it is that a trancedental number is not a zero of any polynomial with integer coefficients. (integer = whole number)

As I expect you know, there are zeros of integer coefficient fifth degree polynomials that cannot be written using plus, minus, times, division and n^th order roots applied to rational numbers. (Abel/Galois). Still algebraic by your second characterization. This has no impact on the existence of God.

Obviously this is a side issue but the proof reader in me took control. I will now crawl back under the covers.

Yeah good point. I tried to simplify and ended up saying false things, ouch!

[Winstonm]

Quote

that isn't what i asked you... do you agree that love or ethics or the laws of logic are either abstract or material? if so, which? if not, what? and i agree that love is not a feeling... why are decision and commitment not the results of love rather than love itself? if Jesus made the decision and commitment to die for our sins, could he have done so because he loved us? i don't think decision and commitment is the definition of love.

I am having a little difficulty keeping up because of the changes in terms - first you stated that love (and some other things) were "transcendental entities".

I say love is not a transcendental entity. It is not an abstract. It is an action.

Quote

why are decision and commitment not the results of love rather than love itself?

A black hole does not expand by feeding on itself. Energy cannot be created from nothing. Love as an abstract concept has no mass, no store of energy. Decisions and commitments require energy - a supernatural concept cannot drive an energy-dependent vehicle. You cannot "believe" yourself to work it there is no gas in the car - gas has to be pumped into the tank. It is the action that facillitates the locomotion and the belief that you can travel to work by car.

Quote

i don't think decision and commitment is the definition of love

Like I said - it is hard when it doesn't fit the bias of your worldview. It is near impossible if removing the bias destoys a worldview upon which the self is dependent - our psychological defense mechanisms protect us from challenges to the worldview of self - it is what closes minds.

So the question really is this: is the reason you don't think decision and commitment define love because it is untrue or because it does not fit your worldview? Is your answer an honest one or can you recognize the defense mechanisms that may be hiding the truth from yourself in order to protect yourself?

Gets a little hairy, doesn't it?

[han]

Abstract is the same as metaphysical? And what does love have to do with it?

This is getting too complicated, I need a religion.

[Winstonm]

Quote

you asked me to attempt to account for the laws of logic from within the atheistic worldview and i did so... i'd like to read your own efforts

For clarity, I did not specify "laws of logic". Here is what I wrote:

Quote

try putting the shoe on the other foot and explaining to yourself how your transcendental entities could be explained by an atheist worldview.

You were the one who placed love and logic in the grouping of transcendental entities.

For me, I have no problem in understanding how moral actions could be driven by evolution and natural selection - survival of the species would reward certain actions and penalize others. I have no problem in seeing how an evolving brain could address higher problems and create a set of logic laws that explain rather than drive thinking.

But the bigger difference I have is that I have no problem explaining all of this from either viewpoint - with a God or without - the key is in changing the understanding of God.

[luke warm]

[quote name='Winstonm' date='May 23 2008, 11:07 PM'][quote]that isn't what i asked you... do you agree that love or ethics or the laws of logic are either abstract or material? if so, which? if not, what? and i agree that love is not a feeling... why are decision and commitment not the results of love rather than love itself? if Jesus made the decision and commitment to die for our sins, could he have done so because he loved us? i don't think decision and commitment is the definition of love.[/quote]

I am having a little difficulty keeping up because of the changes in terms - first you stated that love (and some other things) were "transcendental entities".

I say love is not a transcendental entity. It is not an abstract. It is an action.[/quote]
if love isn't an abstract it is material... since you say it isn't an abstract, you must mean love is a thing that is suspended in time and space... if so suspended, point it out... you can point out the results of love (such as decision and commitment) but that's like pointing out the results of morality or of ethics or of the laws of logic... you are imo confusing cause and effect
[quote][quote]why are decision and commitment not the results of love rather than love itself?[/quote]
A black hole does not expand by feeding on itself. Energy cannot be created from nothing. Love as an abstract concept has no mass, no store of energy. Decisions and commitments require energy - a supernatural concept cannot drive an energy-dependent vehicle. You cannot "believe" yourself to work it there is no gas in the car - gas has to be pumped into the tank. It is the action that facillitates the locomotion and the belief that you can travel to work by car.[/quote]
do you realize how absurd your answer to my question sounds? why are decision and commitment not the results of love rather than love itself? why it's obvious, it's because a black hole doesn't feed on itself and energy can't be created from nothing... must all abstract entities have mass? must they all have stores of energy? to say that love isn't an abstract because it has mass and stores of energy is simply an assertion... again, at least attempt a rational explanation... if love is in fact material and not abstract, point it out... if the laws of logic are not abstract, point them out
[quote][quote]i don't think decision and commitment is the definition of love[/quote]
Like I said - it is hard when it doesn't fit the bias of your worldview. It is near impossible if removing the bias destoys a worldview upon which the self is dependent - our psychological defense mechanisms protect us from challenges to the worldview of self - it is what closes minds.[/quote]
i've really tried to keep this polite, but the truth is you have offered no rational basis for what you are saying... tell me how my worldview is biased because i don't define love the way some book you read defines it, and why your worldview isn't biased for the opposite reason... it's obvious that failing to acknowledge that love is an abstract is near impossible for you because removing that bias destroys your worldview... your psychological defense mechanisms are simply kicking in to protect you from challenging your own worldview - it has closed your mind... now anyone reading this would be absolutely correct to say that what i just wrote is irrational, yet it's exactly what you wrote...
[quote]So the question really is this: is the reason you don't think decision and commitment define love because it is untrue or because it does not fit your worldview?  Is your answer an honest one or can you recognize the defense mechanisms that may be hiding the truth from yourself in order to protect yourself?

Gets a little hairy, doesn't it?  [/quote]
so the question is really this: is the reason you don't think love is abstract because it is untrue or is it because it doesn't fit your worldview? is your answer honest, or can you recognize the defense mechanisms that may be hiding the truth from yourself as a means of self-protection?

gets a little hairy, doesn't it?

see how that sounds? i've said why i think love is an abstract (it isn't suspended in space and time), and i think most people would agree with me on that point... you say it is concrete, or material, because you read it in a book and agree with it
[quote name='Winstonm' date='May 23 2008, 11:25 PM'][quote]you asked me to attempt to account for the laws of logic from within the atheistic worldview and i did so... i'd like to read your own efforts[/quote]
For clarity, I did not specify "laws of logic". Here is what I wrote:
[quote]try putting the shoe on the other foot and explaining to yourself how your transcendental entities could be explained by an atheist worldview. [/quote]

You were the one who placed love and logic in the grouping of transcendental entities.[/quote]
fine... the fact remains that i did as you asked, or i did my best... why not reciprocate?
[quote]I have no problem in seeing how an evolving brain could address higher problems and create a set of logic laws that explain rather than drive thinking.[/quote]
is this (and i mean it sincerely, since my effort is to this point all i have by way of comparison) the explanation for laws of logic in the atheist's worldview? the evolving brain *created* laws of logic to explain thinking... how would that work, exactly? "there's ugh over there, and he's not over here... hmmm i guess he can't be here and there at the same time in the same way... eureka!!" do you think they maybe weren't created by man, but there's maybe another reason they exist?
[quote]But the bigger difference I have is that I have no problem explaining all of this from either viewpoint - with a God or without - the key is in changing the understanding of God.[/quote]
sure you have difficulty doing it, else you'd have done it by now... in the atheist worldview, how are the laws of logic accounted for?

[matmat]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

i've really tried to keep this polite, but the truth is you have offered no rational basis for what you are saying...

heh. and you have? if you're not happy that others do not share your irrational world view, that's your problem.

[barmar]

onoway, on May 23 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

I am at a loss to see how anyone can suggest that there is an innate morality in humans, any more than in baboons or wolves,for example. In fact perhaps less, if you consider that humans are generally believed to have consciousness which other animals supposedly lack.

It's quite obvious that humans have an innate morality.

First of all, most societies have similar ideas about right and wrong, despite having very different religions. This suggests that morality is independent of religion, and that most religious teachings come from human morality, not the other way around.

Second, most religious people do not follow the words of their religion literally. For instance, the Bible proscribes severe (sometimes capital) punishment for many transgressions that are now considered relatively minor, and encourages practices like slavery that are now considered abhorent. How do they decide which parts of the Bible to follow strictly, and which are out-dated or merely symbolic? They base it on their morality! Obviously this morality can't come from the Bible, because then you'd have a circularity.

Do people seriously believe that religion is the only thing keeping society from devolving into savage anarchy? You sure have a low opinion of people. And even if this is true, what about the fact that at least as much cruelty has been perpetrated in the name of religion as not: the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, etc. And these were not done by confused followers of the religions, they were commanded by the leaders of the religious organizations -- the people who should be exemplary role models.

If you don't believe that humans have innate morality, do you believe in democracy? Democracy presupposes that people can make decisions on their own. If you believe that morality comes from religion, then you should believe in a theocracy.

[onoway]

You made quite a jump when you assumed I am saying that religion is responsible for morality. It would be as apt to say religion is responsible for good manners. What I said was I see absolutely no reason to say that humans have an innate sense of morality. Telling me it's obvious that they do is simple contradiction, and as such worthless.

I think that most people prefer to live relatively peaceful lives, but some are much more willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want. Generally,whatever the modus operandi, (these people may be more forceful or clever at manipulating, or they will stop at little to achieve their goals,) over time, they push the passives too far and then you get such things as the Magna Carta and other documents or arrangements. These are simply supposed to stop the aggressive members of society from being able to stress the society so much. It is a large jump to say any of this presupposes morality. It is simply societal organization. Other species have the same sort of organisation, though obviously without the paperwork.

I imagine that religions have probably always been closely involved with the structuring and control of societies because they offered a bridge between the known and the unknown. How perfect a platform for either the philanthropist or the sociopath to wield influence.Why do virtually all cultures historically have some sort of religion as part and parcel of their structure? Possibly it's a way of defining society so people know what is expected of them, how they are fitting into the larger group. It's much easier to manage a society if everyone plays by the same rules. It's even easier if people behave in a cooperative way in the first place. Religion gave structure and validity, true or not depending on your point of view, by offering reasons for the structure or rules. (Even if the reason was, because God said so). All of this is has to do with the organising and running of a society. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with practicality. If someone runs around bashing everybody's head in, then pretty soon the only one left is the basher and the group becomes extinct. So rules are put in that people shouldn't do that to their own family or clan or group or countrymen. Again, many animals have similar patterns of behaviour.Does this mean those animals have innate morality?

It's also difficult to believe in this innate morality when you look around..just one example, when the leader, the representative of the most powerful nation on earth uses his power to facilitate torture, and there is virtually no effective reaction.If he had raised taxes 2000% there certainly would have been. Which is the moral question?

Telling me something is so because someone wrote a book about it simply isn't good enough. (after all, are you not one of those who take issue with the Bible?)If it is so obvious, there should be no difficulty demonstrating why and how my point of view is mistaken.

[helene_t]

barmar, on May 24 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

First of all, most societies have similar ideas about right and wrong, despite having very different religions. This suggests that morality is independent of religion, and that most religious teachings come from human morality, not the other way around.

I think it's quite obvious that we have an innate faculty for moral thinking, but OTOH I often find myself disagreeing with other people about specific moral issues.

If person A thinks that it is immoral for the government to interfere with transfer of wealth between generations while person B thinks that all children should start with the same opportunities so the government has a moral obligation to inhibit wealth transfer, is that due to
1) A biological difference between the two persons?
2) A cultural difference?
3) Hypocrisy on behalf of either or both (in fact they think the same) ?

I would tend to vote for the cultural factor in that specific case but probably not in all cases. As for which cultural factors, I would not attribute much to religion. As you say, people don't follow all the recommendation of their religion anyway. I happen to consider myself an atheist but I don't think I am much more likely to agree with other atheists than with a Confucian, Jew, Moslem, Christian, whatever on moral issues.

I suppose this could look differently from a US perspective. It is my impression that religion has strong political implications in the US. Here it is largely a personal thing, I don't feel a need to know if my friends, colleges and relatives have any religious belief and I certainly wouldn't care about the religion of a politician for whom I considered to vote.

As for your statement that different societies have similar ideas about right and wrong: I think this is largely true today, but it also seems to me that things used to be radically different. Go back in time and the scope of our moral obligations become narrower. Today women, and people with different skin color, have human rights. Some would even attribute rights to animals. This has not always been the case, I think.

[luke warm]

onoway, on May 24 2008, 04:17 AM, said:

You made quite a jump when you assumed I am saying that religion is responsible for morality.

she didn't say that

[kenberg]

Pam,

What I, and I think others, are saying is that there is a disconnect between:

A: " I imagine that religions have probably always been closely involved with the structuring and control of societies because they offered a bridge between the known and the unknown. "

and

B: The factual clams made by religious people are true.

Statement A, if true, suggests that if you want to organize society and have it run smoothly it would be a really good idea to get everyone to believe that there is a God and that he says you should behave according to the rules you wish to promote.

Often such ideas are tried, sometimes involving God, sometimes not. One of the first research level books I ever read was translated from the Russian. The first twenty pages or so was a paean to the guidance of Lenin, the authors explaining how the Glorious Leader had inspired their every move. On the page after this mandated introduction, you could almost hear the authors saying "Now that we got that crap out of the way let's do some math". In the sixties, people were running around quoting from Chairman Mao. Perhaps this stuff was useful for cementing their society, but it did not in any way mean that it was true.

My point is not to make an equivalence of Russian or Chinese orthodoxies with Christianity, rather my point is that the social utility of religion, or Leninism, or whatever, is not indicative of its truth.


Now about innate morality. There certainly are innate traits, and I would be cautious about rejecting possibilities. For example, I don't myself believe in ESP, but I don't rule it out. Some animals have some truly remarkable abilities and exactly what the mechanism is, and how it relates to humans, I am at least somewhat open minded about. As to innate morality, I believe there have been some rather concrete experiments and observations. Children, at a very young age, seem to understand that some things are wrong because someone in authority said so, and they understand other things are wrong because they are wrong, even if no one has said so. I don't know the details and there can always be arguments about what it all means, but I wouldn't rule out some sort of innate understanding of fairness. Personally, however the science on this comes out, I don't think it has any religious consequences one way or the other, but I keep an open mind on how the science will come out.

For me, much of this discussion is barking not only up the wrong tree but in the wrong woods. I am skeptical of most religious claims and some of them I think are surely false. But my views are not really based on scientific inquiry. Nor, I think, are most people's whatever their conclusions. Take, just for an example, the Virgin Birth. You hardly need advanced scientific training to be aware of the fact that virgins don't usually give birth. So science is really irrelevant. You believe there was a miracle that occurred through divine intervention, or you don't. I don't. But I would feel foolish arguing this on physiological grounds, as if the person with another view needed such instruction. Fundamentally, I don't believe it because it's at odds with the way I see the world. But that's just the way I see the world. Many years ago a professor of mine (John Berryman) in a humanities course where such matters were up for discussion, put it roughly as follows: "I don't believe in miracles but I have more respect for people who think that they might happen than for people who are sure that they cannot. " Something like this seems right to me. And don't blame John Berryman. I had withdrawn from religion before I ever got to college. Not as young as Einstein when he drew away, but roughly so.

Einstein's contributions, however, were in science (everyone knows of relativity, but his Nobel prize was for work in Brownian motion). His religious views reflected his experience with the world, but they do not have scientific force.

Best wishes,
Ken

[Winstonm]

Quote

i've said why i think love is an abstract (it isn't suspended in space and time),

If love is an abstract then it is useless, regardless of who believes it.

[luke warm]

can the same be said for other abstracts, or did you just arbitrarily choose love?